list_knowledge_base_collections

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'List all collections' but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (implied by parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately brief with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose clearly, while the second adds helpful context about collections. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with usage guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (list operation with 2 optional parameters) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally explain more about the return format or behavioral constraints to reach completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (limit and offset). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, resulting in the baseline score of 3 for adequate but no extra value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('List all collections') and resource ('in your organization's knowledge base'), with additional context about what collections are used for. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_knowledge_base_documents' or 'search_knowledge_base', which would require a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_knowledge_base_documents' or 'search_knowledge_base', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.